If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

On second glance the carving looks self-inflicted as fuck. My best mate IRL is a self-cutter and whenever he carves something into his arm or whatever there's usually faint scratches beneath the most obvious wound because, since you're doing it to yourself, you don't go hard right away. Look at the wrong-way-around Swastika, there are soft scratches beneath it.



Why would a violent mob with a knife go easy at first and then leave a fairly mundane wound? Surely they'd just carve it the first go with some strength behind it? I could be talking out of my ass and maybe she's a genuine victim but it looks kinda like bullshit.

Edit: apparently it has been confirmed as a hoax but I can't read their language and can't be arsed to translate it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

 

[CiG]

I remember that one.

TFW you looked in a mirror while you were doing it and played ya self.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Edit: most in the comments are calling to fake news too.

i totally did nazi that coming.

 

[Dak]

Simply incorrect. Discourse can involve speculation, extrapolation, and analogical reasoning. All of these are valid methods of discourse.

Yes, it does. As I already said above.

One can logically speculate, extrapolate, and analogize. If one makes bizarre extrapolations or poor analogies from certain points, one will be called to defend it. I've analogized the comparison between grievance studies and conspiracy theories in a logical fashion (although not exhaustively so).

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not saying there are other theories (I mean, there could be); but evolutionary theory hasn't produced new fossils or biological changes. Those fossils and/or biological changes were/are already there. All evolutionary theory provides is the explanation. So again, I'm not sure what you mean.

It doesn't produce them in themselves, but it provides guidance of where to look to discover them, etc. if I don't have a theory of X, I will be forever stabbing blindly in the dark. To the degree to which a theory reduces things beneath mere chance, we can begin to evaluate it.

I still don't follow. Now you're saying the Areo hoax is itself a grievance study? If grievance studies are invalid, then how is the hoax itself valid?

From another perspective, if it revealed only a few embarrassing examples, then the implication is that most articles published in critical journals aren't embarrassing. They're not "kicking up the proverbial dust." They're dedicated studies of contemporary culture. I think it's that very premise that you have a problem with.

The hoaxes, taking part in grievance studies, aren't "valid". But they are to be understood as accurate representations of the fields of acceptance. In empirical disciplines, the embarrassment of bad studies is overwhelmingly in manufactured or manipulated data, not in the argued justification for the study. This is not the case for fields like "gender studies". While they likely suffer even worse issues in manufactured and/or manipulated data where data is collected (being neo-Nietzschean after all, with an abandonment of ethics as traditionally understood), the "arguments" don't even get off the ground. This is why these fields exist independently of established philosophy, psychology, sociology, biology, or economics departments, or they publish outside of established journals in these fields. Conspiracy theories and myths that enough people have accepted so as to become "accepted", at least in getting some federal dollars and a space on campus. What's the old saying about cults? It's not a cult if you have enough members? I think more highly of people who believe in Bigfoot. At least we generally don't have to worry about them going to the zoo and claiming to have seen 12 of them in the gorilla enclosure, much less claiming that Bigfoot(s?feets?) are ruining their lives in every imaginable way. Feminists imagine the patriarchy in the literal air they breath (eg pollution). Do they publish such claims in Philosophical Review? Do they publish such claims in Environmental Pollution? Not to my knowledge. They simply make up their own journals or publish in bullshit open access journals. Of course, they have to do this because they would get rejected. And why would they be rejected from other journals? Because of the patriarchy of course! Why can't we find Bigfoot? Because it doesn't want to be found!

 

[Einherjar86]

One can logically speculate, extrapolate, and analogize. If one makes bizarre extrapolations or poor analogies from certain points, one will be called to defend it. I've analogized the comparison between grievance studies and conspiracy theories in a logical fashion (although not exhaustively so).

Speculation and extrapolation both involve uncertainty. Strictly speaking, logic is the attempted exoricism of uncertainty (unless we're talking about probabilistic logic, which is highly theoretical). Even inductive logic attempts to reduce uncertainty. By contrast, speculation and extrapolation exploit uncertainty. They might appeal to logic, but can be effective without being wholly logical. Additionally, analogical reasoning isn't strictly logical reasoning; it's reasoning by analogy (or by metaphor, comparison, juxtaposition, etc.) which is a creative form of induction. It doesn't infer from a single set of conditions (as does syllogism), but transfers the form of those conditions onto another set of conditions.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm contrasting evolving definitions of logic with traditional predicate logic. Scientists are working to adapt logical principles with new information, but it's changing the shape of what "logic" actually is. For example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165011483800815

In the existing expert systems, uncertainty is dealt with through a combination of predicate logic and probability-based methods. A serious shortcoming of these methods is that they are not capable of coming to grips with the pervasive fuzziness of information in the knowledge base, and, as a result, are mostly ad hoc in nature. An alternative approach to the management of uncertainty which is suggested in this paper is based on the use of fuzzy logic, which is the logic underlying approximate or, equivalently, fuzzy reasoning. A feature of fuzzy logic which is of particular importance to the management of uncertainty in expert systems is that it provides a systematic framework for dealing with fuzzy quantifiers, e.g., most, many, few, not very many, almost all, infrequently, about 0.8, etc. In this way, fuzzy logic subsumes both predicate logic and probability theory, and makes it possible to deal with different types of uncertainty within a single conceptual framework.

It doesn't produce them in themselves, but it provides guidance of where to look to discover them, etc. if I don't have a theory of X, I will be forever stabbing blindly in the dark. To the degree to which a theory reduces things beneath mere chance, we can begin to evaluate it.

In other words, it provides scientists with tips for where to locate further evidence for confirming evolutionary theory.

I'm not trying to undermine evolutionary theory here, for what it's worth; but you're not revealing any "concrete objects" that evolutionary theory produces or reveals. Scientists simply discover more evidence for the legitimacy of evolutionary theory. That evidence doesn't do much else outside of affirming the theory.

Conspiracy theories and myths that enough people have accepted so as to become "accepted", at least in getting some federal dollars and a space on campus.

This is hilarious. You think the game is to figure out the right "myths" so as to secure funding? Look up the funding universities allocate for STEM and compare it with the women's and gender studies programs, then come back and keep comparing it to a conspiracy theory designed to earn dollar signs.

Feminists imagine the patriarchy in the literal air they breath (eg pollution). Do they publish such claims in Philosophical Review? Do they publish such claims in Environmental Pollution? Not to my knowledge. They simply make up their own journals or publish in bullshit open access journals. Of course, they have to do this because they would get rejected. And why would they be rejected from other journals? Because of the patriarchy of course! Why can't we find Bigfoot? Because it doesn't want to be found!

Do the people who publish in Environmental Pollution publish in Hypatia? I'm not sure what you're going on about. All fields "make up their own journals." For espousing logic so much you really don't present any in your posts. You're just lambasting fields you don't like.

 

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

Speculation and extrapolation both involve uncertainty. Strictly speaking, logic is the attempted exoricism of uncertainty (unless we're talking about probabilistic logic, which is highly theoretical). Even inductive logic attempts to reduce uncertainty. By contrast, speculation and extrapolation exploit uncertainty. They might appeal to logic, but can be effective without being wholly logical. Additionally, analogical reasoning isn't strictly logical reasoning; it's reasoning by analogy (or by metaphor, comparison, juxtaposition, etc.) which is a creative form of induction. It doesn't infer from a single set of conditions (as does syllogism), but transfers the form of those conditions onto another set of conditions.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm contrasting evolving definitions of logic with traditional predicate logic. Scientists are working to adapt logical principles with new information, but it's changing the shape of what "logic" actually is. For example:

I don't see an important difference here between "fuzzy logic" and probabilistic approaches (despite the author's assertion that there is a difference), unless there's some sort of structural coding issue for AI that needs some sort of input flexibility that doesn't correspond exactly to a probability estimate with a confidence interval (which is, in a manner of speaking, fuzzy). I may not being clear enough; we likely should be approaching everything in terms of probability (that's a probabilistic statement in itself). But what does this have to do with fields which reject logic and science? "We need a new inter-sectional logic" "A decolonialized science" "A queer mathematics". There's likely an inverse relation between knowledge of hard science fields and the placement of these types of buzzwords around them as qualifiers.

In other words, it provides scientists with tips for where to locate further evidence for confirming evolutionary theory.
I'm not trying to undermine evolutionary theory here, for what it's worth; but you're not revealing any "concrete objects" that evolutionary theory produces or reveals. Scientists simply discover more evidence for the legitimacy of evolutionary theory. That evidence doesn't do much else outside of affirming the theory.

The difference is that the theory could be disconfirmed. Can't ever disconfirm Bigfoot. Or Patriarchy. All evidence is evidence for, even the absence or ostensible counter-evidence.

This is hilarious. You think the game is to figure out the right "myths" so as to secure funding? Look up the funding universities allocate for STEM and compare it with the women's and gender studies programs, then come back and keep comparing it to a conspiracy theory designed to earn dollar signs.
Do the people who publish in Environmental Pollution publish in Hypatia? I'm not sure what you're going on about. All fields "make up their own journals." For espousing logic so much you really don't present any in your posts. You're just lambasting fields you don't like.

Obviously there's not as much funding. So what? Enough to keep enough employed with otherwise useless degrees to keep the sham going. Why would people who publish in Environmental Pollution need to publish in Hypatia? They aren't producing arguments, research, or claims that apply. On the other hand, those publishing in Hypatia make claims about the environment:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1997.tb00174.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01220.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/hypa.12064

From the last:

feminist analyses of climate change that underline the gendered, racialized, and colonial power politics at play in both how climate change is experienced and how responsibility should be attributed (for example, Alaimo 2009; Seager 2009; Cuomo 2011; Glazebrook 2011).

 

[The Ozzman]

View attachment 16465

1) Cut a hole in the pumpkin
2) Put yo junk in dat pumpkin

Who is that porn star fo real tho?

 

[Einherjar86]

we likely should be approaching everything in terms of probability (that's a probabilistic statement in itself). But what does this have to do with fields which reject logic and science? "We need a new inter-sectional logic" "A decolonialized science" "A queer mathematics". There's likely an inverse relation between knowledge of hard science fields and the placement of these types of buzzwords around them as qualifiers.

My point is that these fields don't reject logic and science. You've simply been (as far as I can tell) defining and/or presenting logic and science in a way that excludes these fields.

Studies that involve language (namely, humanistic studies such as English and history, but that also include studies on gender, race, etc.) operate according to a fundamental scientific principle: uncertainty. Niels Bohr used to say humans are "suspended in language," by which he meant that language is an observing apparatus much like instruments for measuring quantum phenomena are. This doesn't mean that language (or physics) are wholly illogical, but that logical reasoning can't entirely explain the way they work. Scientists know this, which is why you're seeing people at reddit and 4chan spewing over this hoax, but very few (if any) scientists up in arms about it.

Studies that point out forms of social inequality, disparity, or other discrepancies aren't always identifying logical things; they're simply pointing out cultural associations. The more an association is observed, probabilistically speaking, the more likely it is to have some entrenched cultural meaning that's worth questioning.

The difference is that the theory could be disconfirmed. Can't ever disconfirm Bigfoot. Or Patriarchy. All evidence is evidence for, even the absence or ostensible counter-evidence.

The patriarchy could also be disconfirmed. If scientists found a bunch of fossils out of place, it would (very likely) disconfirm evolution. But they haven't found any yet. Likewise, if historians uncovered a bunch of secret female U.S. presidents and business-owners (prior to the 1950s at least), that would be compelling evidence to disprove the patriarchy. But they haven't found any yet.

Furthermore, the mere presence of fossil evidence wouldn't disprove evolutionary theory. That's not how science works:

Also, this: https://aeon.co/essays/a-fetish-for-falsification-and-observation-holds-back-science

So Newtonian gravity was ultimately thrown out, but not merely in the face of data that threatened it. That wasn’t enough. It wasn’t until a viable alternative theory arrived, in the form of Einstein’s general relativity, that the scientific community entertained the notion that Newton might have missed a trick. But what if Einstein had never shown up, or had been incorrect? Could astronomers have found another way to account for the anomaly in Mercury’s motion? Certainly--they could have said that Vulcan was there after all, and was merely invisible to telescopes in some way.

This might sound somewhat far-fetched, but again, the history of science demonstrates that this kind of thing actually happens, and it sometimes works

The point is that relying on falsifiability as an absolute metric of scientific viability is counter-productive.

Obviously there's not as much funding. So what? Enough to keep enough employed with otherwise useless degrees to keep the sham going. Why would people who publish in Environmental Pollution need to publish in Hypatia? They aren't producing arguments, research, or claims that apply. On the other hand, those publishing in Hypatia make claims about the environment

This is a misleading contrast. The papers in Hypatia might be talking about scientific subjects, but they're not contributing to the scientific discourse surrounding those subjects. Likewise, papers in Environmental Pollution might talk about social subjects, like this paper for instance; but they're not contributing to the sociological discourse surrounding the "socioeconomic" factors they mention.

You're trying to craft a hierarchy based on assumed preferences of authors from the respective journals, but you've falsely (or at least questionably) diagnosed happenstance subjects as indicative of some alternative preference. The authors who submit to Hypatia wouldn't prefer to submit their essays to a science journal--and it's not because they fear they wouldn't be taken seriously. The editors of a science journal might very well take an argument from a gender theorist very seriously; but that's beside the point. It wouldn't be accepted because it's the wrong field. Likewise, a paper on astrophysics would probably be taken seriously by the editorial board at Hypatia; but they're not going to publish it because it's not the appropriate discourse.

I feel like this shouldn't need explaining and you should be able to recognize how much you're projecting. I also think you underestimate the amount of respect between colleagues in the sciences and humanities. They might not always agree, but it's not like humanities people can't get into some kind of elite club and so they form their own.

EDIT: this is a great response from someone who served as a reviewer for one of Areo's papers:

Academics of all ranks and disciplines live in fear of "Reviewer 2." This publishing trope refers to the dreaded anonymous peer reviewer who gratuitously disparages your paper, curtly dismisses it, or seems to have not read it at all. These fears are, to an extent, justified — such peer-review stories are not uncommon. As a graduate student, I have received "Reviewer 2"-type reviews. This past June, when I peer-reviewed a paper for the first time, I decided I would try to be different.

The paper at hand attempted to theorize masturbation as a form of violence. I told my wife and my adviser that I was reviewing a strange paper and remember sitting at my desk trying to figure out what to do with it. Strange is not — in and of itself — bad, and simply calling a paper strange is not a review. So I dug in, read the paper, and tried to decipher what was going on. The paper was bad, and I quickly decided on a rejection.

But how to approach writing the rejection? I looked at a rejection I had received. The reviewer had read my paper carefully, offered substantive and detailed critiques, and offered directions I might be able to take the paper. I remembered how much I liked that reviewer, and so decided to take the same approach. I critiqued the paper substantively, while offering potential avenues the authors might be able to pursue. I hoped that, despite the rejection, the author might benefit from the review.

In their article announcing the hoax, the writers used selected quotes from my review to argue that I supported this paper (despite recommending a rejection). This selective use of my comments seemed disingenuous. They were turning my attempt to help the authors of a rejected paper into an indictment of my field and the journal I reviewed for, even though we rejected the paper.

As the initial embarrassment and frustration of reviewing a hoax article has worn off, and through an outpouring of support on Twitter, I am still glad I chose not to be "Reviewer 2." It is impossible to know who is on the other end of blind peer review, and it is reasonable to assume the person has good intentions, even if the paper is mediocre or worse.

My first reviewing experience has been strange, and, if nothing else, I am moving on confident in my decision to be a critical yet constructive scholar.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753?cid=trend_right_a

 

[Dak]

My point is that these fields don't reject logic and science. You've simply been (as far as I can tell) defining and/or presenting logic and science in a way that excludes these fields.

Studies that involve language (namely, humanistic studies such as English and history, but that also include studies on gender, race, etc.) operate according to a fundamental scientific principle: uncertainty. Niels Bohr used to say humans are "suspended in language," by which he meant that language is an observing apparatus much like instruments for measuring quantum phenomena are. This doesn't mean that language (or physics) are wholly illogical, but that logical reasoning can't entirely explain the way they work. Scientists know this, which is why you're seeing people at reddit and 4chan spewing over this hoax, but very few (if any) scientists up in arms about it.

Studies that point out forms of social inequality, disparity, or other discrepancies aren't always identifying logical things; they're simply pointing out cultural associations. The more an association is observed, probabilistically speaking, the more likely it is to have some entrenched cultural meaning that's worth questioning.

All studies use language, that's not a defense. We're never going to agree about English studies, but I think English departments have stepped far outside of their bounds in all directions. There are psychologists (eg Pinker specifically) doing the work that English academics should be doing (not saying he's doing it well; I have no idea), and English academics attempting to do everything but. Studies calling out "inequality" could publish articles about those inequalities within the relevant disciplines - but that would require having a sufficient understanding of those disciplines. Particularly when we are talking about economic inequality.

The "association" thing is precisely where they run afoul. There's no nuanced understanding of asymmetry. A yardstick is picked and an "inequality" is found. Like children who don't understand the principle of conservation.

The patriarchy could also be disconfirmed. If scientists found a bunch of fossils out of place, it would (very likely) disconfirm evolution. But they haven't found any yet. Likewise, if historians uncovered a bunch of secret female U.S. presidents and business-owners (prior to the 1950s at least), that would be compelling evidence to disprove the patriarchy. But they haven't found any yet.

Furthermore, the mere presence of fossil evidence wouldn't disprove evolutionary theory. That's not how science works:

Also, this: https://aeon.co/essays/a-fetish-for-falsification-and-observation-holds-back-science

The point is that relying on falsifiability as an absolute metric of scientific viability is counter-productive.

So the yardstick is formal political power since the middle ages. Sounds like a tautology to me but that's fine. So we have a patriarchy defined as formal political power. None of the other dogma follows logically from this.

That article only makes the point that we can't always falsify things immediately. But that's talking about the unobservable at any given time in physics. Are you trying to submit "masculine and feminine energies" or something? Queer "energies"?

This is a misleading contrast. The papers in Hypatia might be talking about scientific subjects, but they're not contributing to the scientific discourse surrounding those subjects. Likewise, papers in Environmental Pollution might talk about social subjects, like this paper for instance; but they're not contributing to the sociological discourse surrounding the "socioeconomic" factors they mention.

You're trying to craft a hierarchy based on assumed preferences of authors from the respective journals, but you've falsely (or at least questionably) diagnosed happenstance subjects as indicative of some alternative preference. The authors who submit to Hypatia wouldn't prefer to submit their essays to a science journal--and it's not because they fear they wouldn't be taken seriously. The editors of a science journal might very well take an argument from a gender theorist very seriously; but that's beside the point. It wouldn't be accepted because it's the wrong field. Likewise, a paper on astrophysics would probably be taken seriously by the editorial board at Hypatia; but they're not going to publish it because it's not the appropriate discourse.

Well, they are "different discourses" as it were. But while one "discourse" attempts to identify finite problems with concrete mechanisms and associated solutions, the other purports to find them inexhaustibly in the abstract, as well as solve them with.....gay sex? "queering"? making women have more money? Electing a transman dictator of the world?

I feel like this shouldn't need explaining and you should be able to recognize how much you're projecting. I also think you underestimate the amount of respect between colleagues in the sciences and humanities. They might not always agree, but it's not like humanities people can't get into some kind of elite club and so they form their own.

I'm not sure you are using "projection" appropriately but assuming you mean the following:

Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Have you ever disliked someone only to become convinced that the person had a vendetta against you? This is a common example of psychological projection.

I've done enough database perusing, intentional or otherwise, of articles saying straight white males are a cancer on the earth, that it's not "projected". But that's beside the point. It's technically possible it's true. But none of the "scholarship" holds up. Separately, it's disingenuous to group the "humanities" together in this way, and I'm not even sure what the "sciences" mean in your usage. We know that STEM disciplines have been under significant attack for being "un/antifeminist", so in that sense your statement is untrue. I'm sure if you walk the STEM side of BU and ask professors if they believe women can do anything, or if transpersons have a right to live, etc., they will agree. Not exactly surprising, whether they believe it or not, and not a proof.

I'm not trying to convince you of abandoning deeply held beliefs or anything. But having spent enough time buried in conspiracy literature from like 06-12 (if not further back), and having grown up in a fundy backgroumd, the overlap between Coast2CoastAM thinking and gender studies et al is overwhelming (analogies!) and the fundy-ness of the entire progressive project is staggering. That isn't to say that your average MAGA-hatter doesn't suffer under some other heuristic limitations. They just aren't of those sorts.

EDIT: this is a great response from someone who served as a reviewer for one of Areo's papers:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753?cid=trend_right_a

One of the author's of the hoax papers was an editor for Areo. I don't see that any of these persons were reviewers for the published papers. Since the viewpoints provided were heterogeneous, not sure which viewpoint you think was a great response.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Einherjar86]

All studies use language, that's not a defense. We're never going to agree about English studies, but I think English departments have stepped far outside of their bounds in all directions. There are psychologists (eg Pinker specifically) doing the work that English academics should be doing (not saying he's doing it well; I have no idea), and English academics attempting to do everything but. Studies calling out "inequality" could publish articles about those inequalities within the relevant disciplines - but that would require having a sufficient understanding of those disciplines. Particularly when we are talking about economic inequality.

The "association" thing is precisely where they run afoul. There's no nuanced understanding of asymmetry. A yardstick is picked and an "inequality" is found. Like children who don't understand the principle of conservation.

You're right, we're not going to agree.

So the yardstick is formal political power since the middle ages. Sounds like a tautology to me but that's fine. So we have a patriarchy defined as formal political power. None of the other dogma follows logically from this.

That article only makes the point that we can't always falsify things immediately. But that's talking about the unobservable at any given time in physics. Are you trying to submit "masculine and feminine energies" or something? Queer "energies"?

No. I'm saying that patriarchy is falsifiable, but that what could falsify it doesn't exist--we would have found it. For something to be falsifiable only means that falsifiable evidence needs to exist theoretically; and so we come back to theory. Then the strategy of anti-PC-ers and conservatives like you is to attack the disciplines themselves. You don't want to face the reality of history, so you deny its relevance.

I keep responding hoping that you'll say something new, but it doesn't seem to be working.

I'm not sure you are using "projection" appropriately but assuming you mean the following:

Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Have you ever disliked someone only to become convinced that the person had a vendetta against you? This is a common example of psychological projection.

...you drunk bro? I'll respond as best I can to that shitshow of a post.

I mean that you're projecting your impression onto the motivations of others. You're assuming some weird access to individuals' intentions without any real evidence.

Women can't do "anything." Neither can men. You have a warped impression of what gender studies promotes. And now to this:

One of the author's of the hoax papers was an editor for Areo. I don't see that any of these persons were reviewers for the published papers. Since the viewpoints provided were heterogeneous, not sure which viewpoint you think was a great response.

The one I quoted, genius.

 

[Dak]

No. I'm saying that patriarchy is falsifiable, but that what could falsify it doesn't exist--we would have found it. For something to be falsifiable only means that falsifiable evidence needs to exist theoretically; and so we come back to theory. Then the strategy of anti-PC-ers and conservatives like you is to attack the disciplines themselves. You don't want to face the reality of history, so you deny its relevance.

I keep responding hoping that you'll say something new, but it doesn't seem to be working.

I also keep hoping you'll face the reality of history. Weird amirite? You can't figure out how I'm not a feminists (or fill in the blank) and I can't figure out how you haven't dismissed Marx, Freud, etc. On historilogical grounds. Or theoretical even.

I think comparing these fields to conspiracy theories is new. You're definitely not saying anything new, because you're rehashing the same shit I can see on Facebook from non-academics. All you've done is tag in some articles from the studies which are in question.

...you drunk bro? I'll respond as best I can to that shitshow of a post.

I mean that you're projecting your impression onto the motivations of others. You're assuming some weird access to individuals' intentions without any real evidence.

Women can't do "anything." Neither can men. You have a warped impression of what gender studies promotes. And now to this:

Sorry, I missed a "/" in all the copy/responding. If you can't figure a motive from actions fortunately you're not a clinician so the damage to an immediate individual is limited, and you aren't in gender studies, so it's even more limited. But if my Theory of Mind was a shit as you seem to imagine, I'd be scribbling with crayons somewhere.

The one I quoted, genius.

Apologies, was on my phone and somehow something was missed; I am on my PC now and I see it. I've recently experienced a similar "Reviewer 2" issue to what was referenced. Someone who rejected a paper because they didn't like the sheer fact that we investigated a thing because they didn't like the thing - but the evidence in their comments was that they didn't even understand the thing. I would have rather seen that though in this case. I don't know what the comments from Schieber were and don't have the luxury of digging into it, but that one person in (14?) reviewers isn't some nuke to the whole enterprise.

 

[Einherjar86]

Alright, I don't have the energy to keep doing this.

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[CiG]

Alright, I don't have the energy to keep doing this.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

View attachment 16479

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2018/10/05/how-the-npc-meme-tries-to-dehumanise-sjws

 

[CiG]

Kotaku are so garbage and transparently biased.

 

[Dak]

*clap* SAY *clap* IT *clap* AGAIN *clap* FOR *clap* THOSE *clap* IN *clap* THE *clap* BACK *clap*

 

[CiG]